He’s not gonna shag you mate
Peterson, Harris, etc....
- Thread starter prath92
- Start date
-
Nik (@Rood) and Imran (@Annihilate Now!) discuss United's fantastic win away against Athletic Club in the semi-final of the Europa League.
They also pick out the positives of United's 4-3 loss away at Brentford, and Nik reviews a day out at Old Trafford watching Manchester United Women qualify for the Champions League.
He's never been as bad as Peterson, even when he's been pretty bad. Peterson is in a class of his own.
Thank you for this. Crazy how people would want to separate Harris and say he’s ‘better’ for some dumb reason. Here’s another one of his ‘black people are dumber’ dressed up in pseudo science.
Incredible that he’ll so confidently put it down to genetics, and not, say, the cultural bias of such tests, or the fact that African Americans have to navigate and rely on different intuitions than your average "caucasian." Or even discrepancy in nutrition.
I was a fan of Sam some years ago, but this and his blatant cheerleading for American hegemony and supposed good intentions show that he’s less of a clear thinker than I used to think.
in the quote above he says 50% to 80%, so it’s not like he has disregarded those other factors altogether, is it?
Why does it even matter?
If (huge fecking if) any ethnicities are slightly less intelligent than others, what does that change? They shouldn't be treated any differently in any way
For what it's worth, didn't Thomas Sowell say genetics aren't really a predicting variable in IQ tests? I remember him saying black people in the northern states would score higher than southern rednecks because they had better educations and such.
In other words: nurture does matter. And I wouldn't put too much stock in IQ test science anyway.
In other words: nurture does matter. And I wouldn't put too much stock in IQ test science anyway.
It’s certainly worth studying because the underlying causes (eg institutional racism) can be understood and addressed if need be
Maybe not but genetics is the main thrust of his point, as he builds it he eventually gets to the point that different groups have different genes, and it’d be weird if that didn’t lead to us seeing different IQ outcomes. Basically saying some ethnicities will (by this narrow measure) be less intellectually gifted. I think you want to be on firmer ground than he is when making this statement, because its implications can lead down sinister routes.
IMHO, and articulated on the fly. Pardon if it’s waffle.
That quote isn't what makes Harris bad on genetics. He's chosen those percentages because he doesn't know what heritability is, which is both funny and stupid, but genetics do influence whatever it is we call intelligence so even though it's wrong it isn't wrong wrong.
What truly makes Harris bad on genetics is that not only does he think white people are smarter than black people partly because white people have better genes for intelligence, but to make it even worse he thinks this is so obviously true that scholars who disagree have to be lying because political correctness gone mad.
He has a paper on free will i think, which is worth reading. Mainly because its total bullshit with really illogical, weird conclusions pulled from nothing. And it seems to be his only contribution to anything resembling a body of work. He's not the total clown that peterson has become but he's not really worth listening to either. When hes right its rarely for the right reasons.
Sam Harris is great. For sure one of the better ones in podcast world. Really good on meditation and related topics. His take on free will is correct as far as I can see
It might be. Just not for the reasons he thinks which he doesn't show any understanding of.
Here's a 3 hour video about Jordan Peterson and if you don't watch all of it you aren't allowed to criticize people who criticize Jordan Peterson. You need the full context, see.
It's genuinely baffling how some people can look at him and think he's actually intelligent, or worth listening to about anything other than maybe (but not really) his actual field.
It's genuinely baffling how some people can look at him and think he's actually intelligent, or worth listening to about anything other than maybe (but not really) his actual field.
Don't know anything about Peterson but happy to accept he's a loon.
But will go to bat for Sam Harris because he has an excellent podcast, and has brought me countless hours of intelligent discussions with intelligent people across a huge span of interesting topics.
I think there are some folk that kind of miss what podcasting is about with regards to being obsessed or 'cancelling' Harris because of a single podcast (and subsequent discussion with Klein and so forth). The man has hundreds of podcasts out there. Are you going to agree with every guest, or what Sam says? Of course not. Does that mean there is no value to listening to philosphers, criminologists, astrophysicists, neurologists and so forth? Of course not.
I've listened to the offending podcast twice, larely to discuss on here (and follow the debate elsewhere, such as with Ezra Klein whom I also enjoy) with a few posters that it clearly means 100x more to than to Sam. Which is fine, I can dig that. But acting like a man who is clearly respected by a great many leaders of their fields doesn't deserve that respect because of a few lines from a single podcast just blows my mind. To me it's a type of anti-intellectualism. Folks dismissing everything he's said because they disagree with one thing.
I encourage people to go listen themselves. If you want a controversial one, listen to Harris' opinion on gun crime in the US. I don't agree with his position, but it's at least well researched and well made. Or pick some of the 'best of' episodes which are great. He's exposed me to a great number of really interesting conversations and subsequent chats with the missus and friends, I'd hate for people to miss out unnecessarily.
But will go to bat for Sam Harris because he has an excellent podcast, and has brought me countless hours of intelligent discussions with intelligent people across a huge span of interesting topics.
I think there are some folk that kind of miss what podcasting is about with regards to being obsessed or 'cancelling' Harris because of a single podcast (and subsequent discussion with Klein and so forth). The man has hundreds of podcasts out there. Are you going to agree with every guest, or what Sam says? Of course not. Does that mean there is no value to listening to philosphers, criminologists, astrophysicists, neurologists and so forth? Of course not.
I've listened to the offending podcast twice, larely to discuss on here (and follow the debate elsewhere, such as with Ezra Klein whom I also enjoy) with a few posters that it clearly means 100x more to than to Sam. Which is fine, I can dig that. But acting like a man who is clearly respected by a great many leaders of their fields doesn't deserve that respect because of a few lines from a single podcast just blows my mind. To me it's a type of anti-intellectualism. Folks dismissing everything he's said because they disagree with one thing.
I encourage people to go listen themselves. If you want a controversial one, listen to Harris' opinion on gun crime in the US. I don't agree with his position, but it's at least well researched and well made. Or pick some of the 'best of' episodes which are great. He's exposed me to a great number of really interesting conversations and subsequent chats with the missus and friends, I'd hate for people to miss out unnecessarily.
This is as always, along with the reflexive "out of context" stuff he shares with Peterson, the defense. And it's completely missing the point. Harris isn't being "cancelled", which as always is a euphemism for being criticized, for talking with or interviewing Charles Murray. He's being criticized for agreeing with Charles Murray.
Harris's own defense is that he doesn't agree with all the political opinions of Charles Murray, but that was never the charge. The point is that Harris agrees with Murray about his race realism; that the observed racial IQ gap between black people and white people is partly explained by genetic differences, and he's being criticized for the shoddy way he reaches that conclusion.
Some of his fans denies this, and we've been over this before so I know you're one of them and there's little point in repeating that, but the quotes are there in black and white so it's just denying reality. This is why a substantial portion of his listeners have moved on from this stance to just simply agreeing with Harris. Note that Harris himself has never objected to this, because he does in fact agree.
It's also not just about his race realism, it's a combination of his views on race. Ironically you're missing context.
It's also about his defense of Bloomberg and his unconstitutional stop-and-frisk policy. It's about his denial of unequal police treatment of black people and his vitriolic opposition to Black Lives Matter. His view that Liam Neeson wasn't being racist when he was roaming the streets looking for innocent black people to assault (!!). It's how he treats accusations of racism compared to other forms of bigotry: he doesn't think telling Americans in America to go back where they came from is racist and he thinks "I have a black friend" is a good defense, while he thinks Buttigieg polling low with black people is evidence of homophobia in the black community. He also has quite the sensitive ear for antisemitism.
These are so great 
his schtick fits perfectly with the wooden acting on C&C cutscenes!
his schtick fits perfectly with the wooden acting on C&C cutscenes!Half of the cancel culture argument seems to hinge on this odd concept that people like Harris or Peterson have some sort of right to my time, attention and respect. They don't. Like everyone else, they have to earn that stuff.
There are a thousand reasons we choose to spend our free time consuming the media we do, and the fact that there are lots of good podcasts out there hosted by people who haven't espoused racist views is a perfectly valid one.
There are a thousand reasons we choose to spend our free time consuming the media we do, and the fact that there are lots of good podcasts out there hosted by people who haven't espoused racist views is a perfectly valid one.
Last edited:
Sam Harris is obviously not racist (and obviously a very smart guy). Him touching on controversial topic/s dosen't change that. The people who still go on about him being racist, etc, either really don't understand his arguments, are being dishonest (Klein) or ideology prevents them from reasoning in any usefull way.
Him and Lex Fridman might have the two best podcasts out there at the moment
Anyone who understands Sam Harris' arguments doesn't understand GCSE Philosophy.
Once again, not going to go down rabbit holes with posters who have already made up their minds (and are just making things up) but this is my take. If anyone here doesn't have an opinion, go listen to some podcasts. They're free. If you don't like him, or if they're too dumb for you or if his inherent racism permeates the very subtext of every argument then go find something else to listen to.
Sam does indeed argue that the BLM movement - in hindsight - probably did more harm than good. He agrees that defund the police was a hugely idiotic move politically and did more damage to the good that was coming out of the initial George Floyd protests than anything else. And I agree with him on that. Does that mean I'm a racist? Because I'm willing to challenge the notion that the pendulum swung too far, and images of rioting and looting - no matter how sporadic - give ammunition to the right to create a false narrative that enables the middle to sit this one out and avoid actual change? No, I think it's a perfectly valid view.
On Charles Murray - he did an experiment. The results were numerous, one of which was that in his experiment, IQ and race were shown to be correlated. His experiment has repeated and disproved. IQ tests in general are bunk science. There are countless reasons why there is no reason to believe IQ and race are in way tied. But having this discussion should not be taboo. Murray's book should not be burned, him appearing somewhere should not result in violence and him showing up on a podcast should not see the podcast cancelled. We should be able to acknowledge bad science, bad conclusions and challenge them in the public, rather than pretend their very existence is an affront. All the quotes you're taking from Harris are very much around this - cached in a 'well if we found genetics and X are correlated, we should be able to talk about it, not dismiss it because we don't like it'.
Also to suggest that Sam is so clearly racist I have to assume does a bit of a disservice to the countless black guests who choose to join him to discuss topics - including race.
Spot on. Not to mention his blinkered cheerleading when it comes to US foreign policy, which he constantly bails out with assertions of good intentions.
This is the "I have black friends" equivalent of podcasting.
I was 100% sure someone would respond to that in exactly such a trite way, but I also fail to see how it's irrelevant that Sam had prominent black figures regularly choose to go on his podcast to discuss matters of race. If he was such a transparent racist, why would professors, journalists, physicists etc who are black grace him with their presence?
It's like saying Joe Rogan is sympathetic to lefties because he has left wing guests on.
You see the standard way his supporters tend to reply as well. When faced with specific issues, the response is completely general: don't understand his arguments, dishonesty, ideology, making stuff up, people who have already made their minds up. The last one is extra bizarre, as if that person haven't made their mind up?
Speaking of making stuff up, it's so so easy to check. It's made even easier because Klein publishes transcripts of his podcasts, and because Harris decided to leak their private email conversation.
On the issue of the observed racial IQ gap, there are only three possibilities: 1. Genetics is a factor, and it's in "favour" of white people. 2. Genetics is a factor, and it's in "favour" of black people. 3. Genetics isn't a factor. This is a complete list, nothing else is possible.
Harris says point blank that it's impossible for genetics not to be a factor. That leaves us with two alternatives: genetics is a factor, but it could go in either direction. Klein asked Harris about this by confronting him about a statement from James Flynn, of Flynn effect fame, who said that it's perfectly possible that if genetics does happen to be a factor then it could be in "favour" of black people. Harris's reply was that while it may be possible, it's not plausible.
When you're faced with two possible scenarios and you think one of those is implausible, then the other scenario is the only plausible one. This is so obvious it should be impossible to deny, but apparently it's very possible. We can even math this out. If you only have two possibilities, A and B, then the sum of those probabilities equals one. P(A) + P(B) = 1. This can be written as P(A) = 1 - P(B), and if B is implausible then P(B) is (way) less than 0.5. This means that P(A)>0.5.
And when I brought up his vitriolic opposition to Black Lives Matter, once again the defense has nothing to do with the criticism. It's said that Harris thinks the movement in hindsight did more harm than good and that defend the police was a stupid slogan. But no one talked about hindsight or consequences or defending the police. Already in 2017, 3 years before Floyd and the mass protests, Harris called BLM dangerous, divisive, retrograde and dishonest. He said that organizing around race, which includes not only the Black Lives Matter movement but all others working for similar goals, is obviously both the wrong move and destructive to civil society. He isn't against Black Lives Matter because he thinks they're bad at what they want to achieve, he is inherently against Black Lives Matter no matter what they do or what they achieve.
And even then it doesn't stop here. It's pretended that I or anyone else called Sam Harris a racist because he doesn't like Black Lives Matter. This didn't happen, it's completely made up. Not only didn't I call him a racist at all, but even if I did I said that the criticism he receives on the topic of race is based on the totality of all the things he says on the topic, of which his very strong opposition to BLM is only a very small part.
Peterson's anger is the most apparent thing when he speaks. Then his command of the language. Then his lack of cogent arguments. His fans don't ever get to the third bit.
iq doesn't measure intelligence, it measures competency in a specific mode of conceptual thought. it then calls this "intelligence". middle class black people will no doubt score higher in iq tests on average but it has nothing to do with intelligence. it has to do with inculcation into cultural valences. the stress placed on the didactic form of rote learning and then one's competency to extend the principles obtained there in test conditions. that isn't intelligence, it's competency.
intelligence is universal. competency within specific forms of abstract reasoning differs according to many factors. of course there's a genetic component but it has almost nothing to do with race. all an iq test will measure is literacy. that's a terrible way to divine intelligence amongst a group of people which on average, being in the lower socioeconomic gradations, have higher rates of illiteracy in all the "conventional" languages.
what harris and the others tend to do is reprise the social darwinist arguments which were wholly discredited, on scientific merit, decades ago. in fact they were rejected in the 19th century before being rediscovered in the 20th which led in part to eugenics. it is racist whether you comprehend that or not. it's the literal bedrock of the eugenics movement.
also, the arguments harris makes regarding iq relating to black or white outcomes were made in the 19th century but with reference to southern europeans and immigrants of all varieties who were deemed naturally inferior in the same way. being white, or not black, they didn't face the same segregated conditions which only elapsed in both the us and africa in the latter part of the last century. what you're looking at is a generational divide, not a "pure" natural qualification. the "nature" side here presupposes a kind of timeless essence maintained via natural selection. well that's already been proven absurd. just look at how many of those inferior europeans and asians, generations later, went on to succeed in all kinds of sciences and arts. there are at least a hundred or more nobel laureates from countries previously classified as "inferior" according to the same logic that harris and co continue to extend to this day, and i'm not even counting japan even though they were also considered intellectually inferior for a very long time.
i have no problem with the arguments being made because it's just a nature/nurture rehash and harris and the rest most likely don't understand their own bias. are probably very sincere in thinking that they're correct. you can refute them without cancelling them.
intelligence is universal. competency within specific forms of abstract reasoning differs according to many factors. of course there's a genetic component but it has almost nothing to do with race. all an iq test will measure is literacy. that's a terrible way to divine intelligence amongst a group of people which on average, being in the lower socioeconomic gradations, have higher rates of illiteracy in all the "conventional" languages.
what harris and the others tend to do is reprise the social darwinist arguments which were wholly discredited, on scientific merit, decades ago. in fact they were rejected in the 19th century before being rediscovered in the 20th which led in part to eugenics. it is racist whether you comprehend that or not. it's the literal bedrock of the eugenics movement.
also, the arguments harris makes regarding iq relating to black or white outcomes were made in the 19th century but with reference to southern europeans and immigrants of all varieties who were deemed naturally inferior in the same way. being white, or not black, they didn't face the same segregated conditions which only elapsed in both the us and africa in the latter part of the last century. what you're looking at is a generational divide, not a "pure" natural qualification. the "nature" side here presupposes a kind of timeless essence maintained via natural selection. well that's already been proven absurd. just look at how many of those inferior europeans and asians, generations later, went on to succeed in all kinds of sciences and arts. there are at least a hundred or more nobel laureates from countries previously classified as "inferior" according to the same logic that harris and co continue to extend to this day, and i'm not even counting japan even though they were also considered intellectually inferior for a very long time.
i have no problem with the arguments being made because it's just a nature/nurture rehash and harris and the rest most likely don't understand their own bias. are probably very sincere in thinking that they're correct. you can refute them without cancelling them.
Last edited:
Again on Harris, I encourage people to do their own reading in context. Don't watch YouTube videos commentating on bits and pieces. Here's the entire discussion with Ezra Klein: https://www.vox.com/2018/4/9/17210248/sam-harris-ezra-klein-charles-murray-transcript-podcast
I strongly believe, and still do, that Harris could care less about race and IQ outside of sharing a view with a guest while discussing it. As someone that has been personally attacked numerous times for his opinions, he is extremely interested in people he feels are also unfairly treated because of research or views. Justifiably or not. That's the Murray issue. Harris shouldn't have doubled-down, shouldn't have been so defensive imo, but you're still conflating Murray's views (which for the reasons Klein points out have to be taken in context of his greater works) and Harris. As Harris says: "While I have very little interest in IQ and actually zero interest in racial differences in IQ, I invited Murray on my podcast, because he had recently been de-platformed at Middlebury College. He and his host were actually assaulted as they left the auditorium. In my view, this seemed yet another instance of kind of a moral panic that we were seeing on college campuses. It caused me to take an interest in Murray that I hadn’t previously had. I had never read The Bell Curve, because I thought it was just ... It must be just racist trash, because I assumed that where there was all that smoke, there must be fire. I hadn’t paid attention to Murray."
Surely there are actual people that care about this stuff you could target your ire towards - like Murray himself - rather than Sam Harris?
I strongly believe, and still do, that Harris could care less about race and IQ outside of sharing a view with a guest while discussing it. As someone that has been personally attacked numerous times for his opinions, he is extremely interested in people he feels are also unfairly treated because of research or views. Justifiably or not. That's the Murray issue. Harris shouldn't have doubled-down, shouldn't have been so defensive imo, but you're still conflating Murray's views (which for the reasons Klein points out have to be taken in context of his greater works) and Harris. As Harris says: "While I have very little interest in IQ and actually zero interest in racial differences in IQ, I invited Murray on my podcast, because he had recently been de-platformed at Middlebury College. He and his host were actually assaulted as they left the auditorium. In my view, this seemed yet another instance of kind of a moral panic that we were seeing on college campuses. It caused me to take an interest in Murray that I hadn’t previously had. I had never read The Bell Curve, because I thought it was just ... It must be just racist trash, because I assumed that where there was all that smoke, there must be fire. I hadn’t paid attention to Murray."
Surely there are actual people that care about this stuff you could target your ire towards - like Murray himself - rather than Sam Harris?